<html><body><span style="display:block;" class="xfm_76130527"><div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">Thanks, Jim, for coming back with detailed reply. I am not that well aware that consenus at RIPE is a long-lasting tradition. My comment was made based on my experience in other communities where consensus is regularly blocked due to interpersonal relations. But if at RIPE it works, I have no objections to moving further with selecting the co-chair according to proposed procedure, and get to the contents.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1"><br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">Best,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Arial;" class="xfmc1">Olga </span><br/></div>
<div></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">12 октября 2018, 21:59:45, от "Jim Reid" <</span><a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Arial;">jim@rfc1035.com</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;">>:</span></span></i></div>
<div><br/></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #cccccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;">
<pre style="margin:5px 0;">On 12 Oct <span data-ukrnet-code="2018">2018</span>, at 15:26, Olga Kyryliuk <<a href="mailto:olga_kyryliuk@ukr.net" target="_self" rel="noreferrer noopener">olga_kyryliuk@ukr.net</a>> wrote:
>
> I also don't feel that consensus is the best available option for selecting people for positions. What could be used is anonymous voting ballots. I don't know what exactly software or platforms are used for that, but this is how we vote during elections at ICANN constituencies for example. And then the person is elected by the majority of votes. I believe it's better than consensus.
Thanks for your reply Olga.
RIPE has always used consensus for all important decisions: WG charters, policy making, selecting WG chairs, etc. If you want to change that, you will need to persuade the RIPE community -- by consensus! -- to agree to use some other mechanism. Voting at RIPE is not practical because there is no way of controlling who gets to vote or policing how often they do that. Since there's no membership or eligibility criteria, the concept of one member, one vote just doesn't make sense. Which is why we use consensus-based decision making for the big stuff. Many other institutions do that too, usually for similar reasons.
I'm not sure how well your ICANN example could or would fit at RIPE. That's probably a discussion for another list and another place.
If I understand your position correctly, you support the proposed selection procedure though you'd prefer the WG used voting instead of consensus. Is that right?
</pre>
</blockquote></span></body></html>